it's His followers I could live without - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-07-2006, 12:26 PM   #226
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well this is true, the Bible is written in present tense while Christ was on Earth. There were no people growing up in Christian homes all their lives.
A little history:

The Bible is a twofold literature, made up of two distinct collections which correspond with two successive periods of time in the history of man. The older of these collection, mostly written in Hebrew, corresponds with the many centuries during which the Jewish people enjoyed a national existence, and forms the Hebrew, or Old Testament, literature. The more recent collection, begun not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, is the New Testament, literature.

Both collections have the same inspired character. They form the two parts of a whole, the centre of which is the person and mission of Christ. The same Spirit exercised His mysterious hidden influence on the writings of both Testaments, and made of the works of those who lived before Christ, an active and steady preparation for the New Testament which He was to introduce, and of the works of those who wrote after Him a real continuation and striking fulfilment of the old Covenant.

Christ, a Jew, was the messiah prophesied about in the 'Old Testament' that the Jewish people awaited. He came to fullfill the New covenant. Some Jews (and Gentiles) recognized Christ as that messiah, others did not. Christians today are the remnants of these earliest of converts---followers of Christ.

His teachings, with the help of the Apostles became the foundation of the Early Christian Church. (read Acts of the Apostles).

These Apostles did not have the Bible, to wave around and teach with after He was gone. Christ commissioned His Apostles with a teaching authority through oration, tradition and the continuing influence of the Holy Spirit. This continues today in the Catholic system through its living magisterium.
__________________

__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:29 PM   #227
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 02:37 PM
Take a look at Romans 1. I'm curious for Melon's take on these verses.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:32 PM   #228
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


A little history:

The Bible is a twofold literature, made up of two distinct collections which correspond with two successive periods of time in the history of man. The older of these collection, mostly written in Hebrew, corresponds with the many centuries during which the Jewish people enjoyed a national existence, and forms the Hebrew, or Old Testament, literature. The more recent collection, begun not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, is the New Testament, literature.

Both collections have the same inspired character. They form the two parts of a whole, the centre of which is the person and mission of Christ. The same Spirit exercised His mysterious hidden influence on the writings of both Testaments, and made of the works of those who lived before Christ, an active and steady preparation for the New Testament which He was to introduce, and of the works of those who wrote after Him a real continuation and striking fulfilment of the old Covenant.

Christ, a Jew, was the messiah prophesied about in the 'Old Testament' that the Jewish people awaited. He came to fullfill the New covenant. Some Jews (and Gentiles) recognized Christ as that messiah, others did not. Christians today are the remnants of these earliest of converts---followers of Christ.

His teachings, with the help of the Apostles became the foundation of the Early Christian Church. (read Acts of the Apostles).

These Apostles did not have the Bible, to wave around and teach with after He was gone. Christ commissioned His Apostles with a teaching authority through oration, tradition and the continuing influence of the Holy Spirit. This continues today in the Catholic system through its living magisterium.
Um, yeah. Sorry what was the point of this history lesson?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 12:38 PM   #229
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Actually it's just gay male sex that so many are obsessed with, lesbians are fine apparently, I don't know for sure, I've asked but keep getting ignored.
Your questions have been answered.
Again, all sex (imagined or acted out) outside of the confines of marriage is considered a sin. Since marriage is defined as the physical/spiritual union between One Man and One Woman - then those outside of this definition are engaging in sin.

This is the “orthodox” view of what the Bible says – and a view that I share.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 01:09 PM   #230
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:37 AM
AEON
Nice posts.

Ephesians 6: 10-18
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 01:09 PM   #231
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
Take a look at Romans 1. I'm curious for Melon's take on these verses.
Here is a link to a compelling paper written on this very verse.

It probably won't convince anyone to change their mind - but it presents and articulate, well-researched, and thorough response to the arguments that Melon is making (which are NOT new).





Romans 1
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 01:12 PM   #232
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Your questions have been answered.
Again, all sex (imagined or acted out) outside of the confines of marriage is considered a sin. Since marriage is defined as the physical/spiritual union between One Man and One Woman - then those outside of this definition are engaging in sin.

This is the “orthodox” view of what the Bible says – and a view that I share.
Um, no they haven't. If fact I have a long list of questions just in this thread alone.

The answer you state above doesn't really even address homosexuality, just sex outside of marriage. But you and many others have spoken about homosexual sex specifically not just sex outside of marriage. But I guess it's a convienent umbrella for you to work under since homosexual sex cann't even exist within marriage. So really your whole point of homosexual sex is moot.

Jesus made the statement that marriage is when a man and a woman united in a spiritual union. You've dismissed the idea that Jesus was using the model of a man and woman because it was a model they could understand and if that he meant marriage to be open to homosexuals he would have mentioned that as well. But then why does this logic not apply to Jesus reason for divorce? I asked 80's and he didn't answer, he applied a universal meaning even though Christ just used the model of a man divorcing a woman due to her infedelity.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 01:20 PM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Actually it's just gay male sex that so many are obsessed with, lesbians are fine apparently, I don't know for sure, I've asked but keep getting ignored.
Lesibian relationships are not okay by me.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 01:32 PM   #234
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Lesibian relationships are not okay by me.
Yet many followers and translastions wouldn't agree with you.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 02:53 PM   #235
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yet many followers and translastions wouldn't agree with you.
Really? None of the Christians I know who think that male gay sex is wrong think that Lesbian sex is okay.

And what translation supports that notion?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 05:54 PM   #236
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Of course, it goes both ways, Melon. It could well be said that secular people spend their entire lives studying the scriptures merely looking to disprove those religious traditions.
Except much of those theologians on the forefront of correcting Biblical mistranslations aren't necessarily "secular." They're Roman Catholic. Pope Pius XI, back in the late 1930s, encouraged objective and scientific Biblical scholarship, because it was his reasoning that to understand the true "Word of God" is to properly translate the Bible. He understood even then that the traditional interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily the correct interpretation of the Bible.

If a Catholic Bible says that 1 Corinthians refers to archaic pagan sexual practices, I don't think you can dismiss it as "non-believers" trying to attack the Bible.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 06:06 PM   #237
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
Take a look at Romans 1. I'm curious for Melon's take on these verses.
Speaking of Catholic Bibles and 1 Corinthians, the footnote that states that 1 Corinthians is about archaic pagan sexual practices also refers to 1 Romans as being a further example of this. In other words, both 1 Corinthians and 1 Romans are referring to idolatrous temple orgies.

What makes me chuckle about AEON's article is that it is so fixated on trying to condemn homosexuality that it neglects the context of 1 Romans with the context of 2 Romans:

"Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things." - Romans 2:1

Romans is best understood by knowing the audience of this letter: Jewish Christians. Paul reviled them, because they were so busy trying to live up to every last ritual that they had lost sight of God's larger picture.

Instead of fixating on Romans 1, which was an ancient form of "flame bait," you're better off taking with you the lessons of Romans 13:

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10

Modern Christians should pay more attention to this lesson, because they certainly spend an awful lot of time finding excuses to condemn "non-believers" (Gentiles), while not looking at themselves in the mirror enough.

"For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things."

Melon
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 06:29 PM   #238
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Really? None of the Christians I know who think that male gay sex is wrong think that Lesbian sex is okay.

And what translation supports that notion?
I'd have to look up which translation for it's been awhile, but the scripture states male should not lay with another man in Leviticus and then uses references to sodomy later in scripture(which is a ridiculous translation) both of which don't even touch upon homosexual females. And since lesbian sex doesn't involve intercouse in it's true definition I've heard many say scripture doesn't say anything about lesbianism.

Another inconsistancy I find troubling.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 06:46 PM   #239
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus
If a Catholic Bible says that 1 Corinthians refers to archaic pagan sexual practices, I don't think you can dismiss it as "non-believers" trying to attack the Bible.
WRONG....

The Evangelicals I went to college with would classify Catholics as not being true Christians and going to hell.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-07-2006, 06:58 PM   #240
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


What makes me chuckle about AEON's article is that it is so fixated on trying to condemn homosexuality that it neglects the context of 1 Romans with the context of 2 Romans:

"Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things." - Romans 2:1

Romans is best understood by knowing the audience of this letter: Jewish Christians. Paul reviled them, because they were so busy trying to live up to every last ritual that they had lost sight of God's larger picture.

Instead of fixating on Romans 1, which was an ancient form of "flame bait," you're better off taking with you the lessons of Romans 13:

Melon
Melon, Romans 2:1-3 is plainly referring to people who judge someone for something they themselves are doing, and is not some generic command not to judge certain actions as sin.

Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things . But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?

And there is no evidence that Paul "reviled" Jewish Christians. He opposed the Judaisers who taught that you had to keep the law in order to be saved, but I would hardly call opposition "revile". Not only that, but not all Jewish Christians were Judaisers.

As For Romans 1 being "flame bait", that's a nice spin, but where is your proof of that?
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com